Post Your Comment

43 Comments

Even your M4A feed has an average bitrate of lower than 128 kbps and is close to 100MB vs the MP3's 185MB with an average of over 200 kbps. Obviously there is the codec difference, but I honestly cannot hear any difference between the two, and probably wouldn't even if you went even lower.

The filesize is especially noticeable to me because the bandwidth when downloading your podcasts seems to be bottlenecked on your end. When I was downloading it near release I think I was getting ~1 Mbps :(

I don't mean to disrespect you guys, I just wish for a smoother and more convenient experience when downloading my favorite podcast.Reply

One other point that caught my attention - Intel's 100mV advantage on 22nm is on the threshold voltage. Which is actually a surprising amount when you look at the plot they provided with the release materials and see that they're talking about a ~250mV threshold voltage for 22nm versus 350mV on 32nm. But it's also not really applicable to actual products as near threshold computing is still in the research phase for the most part. However there is a very interesting hint regarding likely operating voltages for Silvermont from the information Intel released on their 22nm SoC process last December. Specifically, at the same leakage levels the 22nm SoC drive currents at 0.75V are roughly 2/3 those of the 32nm process at 1.0V. (I also tend to believe the fact that they provide figures at 0.75V instead of the more standard 1.0V just might be implying something.) While I somewhat doubt that Silvermont will run full turbo frequency at 0.75V, that may well be what it needs to run in its sweet spot, and that kind of voltage reduction would certainly explain the marked jump in efficiency.Reply

The comparison between ARM's and Intel's strategies with regards to the number of their architectures is incredibly insightful. I am curious though how you view this dynamic changing in the long term. While its true that as processor tech continues to advance the middle ground will become increasingly competitive, I would venture that Intel's profit model precludes them from ever truly competing with ARM on the low end. Would you disagree?Reply

Nope. Intel will never, EVER, be "competitive" with Core chips against ARM. The dual core chip alone *starts* at $350 for crying out loud. Their only chance is Atom, but last I checked, even that is at least 2x more expensive than the ARM chips in the same category. There's little reason why any Android/Chrome OS OEM, at least, would pick them over the ARM chips.

Plus, Intel still stands no chance in the mobile GPU race with Atom, Imagination's Series 6 and Nvidia's Kepler will obliterate whatever Intel comes out with in the next few years.Reply

This band is my favourite. I've been listening to some others but you guys are great together, are really knowledgable about the low level aspects of products, and talk about all of the topics that are most interesting instead of sticking to a structure and forcing discussion where there is none.Reply

Google Glass needs to have HTC One's sound recording capability [1], and OIS and good low-light performance (just like any camera should today, but it's even more important for Google Glass, where you shake your head a lot more than your hand when moving).